Crime does pay

On the tenth anniversary of ‘Pudhupettai,’ a look at other antihero films and what made this one special.

The anti-hero has always been a prominent presence in Tamil cinema, but he usually came with a “but only because.” Sivaji Ganesan, in Andha Naal, took to selling Indian secrets to Japan, but only because his big idea was spurned by the Indian government. Kamal Haasan, in Sigappu Rojakkal, went about killing women, but only because of the women from his childhood, who behaved in ways that turned him against them. Rajinikanth, in Baasha, became a don, but only because a rival don murdered his best friend. There was always an extenuating circumstance, something about the environment, or something other people did, something that made us empathise with – at least understand, if not root for – the protagonist who behaved like an antagonist.

The first film that broke this mould was probably Pudhiya Paadhai (1989), which began with the protagonist, played by Parthiban (who also directed), chancing upon a slum going up in flames, and using the fire to light his beedi. In terms of plot, the film closely resembles Sirai, made five years earlier – both revolve around a rapist who is reformed by his victim. But the rapist of Sirai was clearly a villain, a rowdy who fell in lust and raped the woman in a drunken fit. The Parthiban character in Pudhiya Paadhai is a rowdy too, but he’s presented as the leading man, the “hero.” And it was shocking to watch a film in which the protagonist rapes a woman simply because someone paid him Rs. 500 to do so. (However horrible it sounds, at least the man in Sirai knew the woman, desired her – she wasn’t a “job for hire.”) But Pudhiya Paadhai still came with a but only because. Parthiban was a borderline sociopath, but only because his mother, soon after giving birth, tossed him into a dustbin and took off. The extenuating circumstance is given to us fairly early.

The rest of Pudhiya Paadhai is fairly conventional, in the sense that Parthiban realises the error of his ways, becomes a changed man, and so forth, and that was the tone of the rowdy movie until Mani Ratnam made Aayidha Ezhuthu, in 2004. There was no reformation here. The sociopath, played by Madhavan, stayed a sociopath. He beat his wife. He killed his brother. The but only because (a rotten childhood, no parents, a brother who abandoned him) wasn’t dwelt on. It wasn’t offered as an excuse. He didn’t ask for our sympathy. But two things redeemed him in our eyes. One, he was played by Madhavan, a very “likeable” actor – so we could never really hate him. And two, like in all the earlier films about rowdies, justice prevailed. He paid for his sins. His wife left him. In his last scene, we see a prison orderly telling him to get ready for court, where he may be sentenced to hang.

The next major leap in the “rowdy movie” was Pudhupettai, made in 2006, by Selvaraghavan. This film had many elements from earlier films about rowdies. The backdrop of politics. A vague but only because in the form of the mother having been murdered by the father. The girlfriend who is a sex worker. The birth-of-the-hero moment from masala movies. But what’s missing is a moral force, the sense that the universe is watching, that karma (or at least a cop) will get you. This alone is enough to make Pudhupettai a landmark film in the genre, but there’s more. The protagonist is Dhanush, who, at that point was still raw, not really “likeable” on screen – and the film takes pains to position him as lower-class, as a porukki. In one of the electrifying songs, he warns the educated middle-class (i.e. the Sathyam-theatre audience) “enga area ulla varaathey” – these are our neighbourhoods, stay away. Selvaraghavan furthered his reputation as the first serious filmmaker who made movies about the kind of people who are not traditionally considered the audience for “serious films.”

Among the many taboos broken by Pudhupettai is the utter disregard for the mother figure so sacred in Tamil cinema. Around the half-hour mark, Dhanush describes to his new gang mates his mother’s death at the hands of his father. We expect a sentimental scene. Instead, one man talks about a mother who poured boiling water on him when he asked her why she was sleeping with the tailor. Another speaks of his lorry-driver father who gave his mother AIDS. Much later, a politician who ordered a bomb attack on Dhanush’s house swears on his mother that he knew nothing about any of this. It’s not just the mother figure. The sex-worker girlfriend, played by Sneha, is no timid thing, like Saranya in Nayakan. She’s wily. She manipulates Dhanush into marrying her. Dhanush is no honourable Kamal Haasan either. Despite being with Sneha, he falls for Sonia Agarwal, marries her. And Sonia Agarwal is no mute victim. One of her acts of revenge is to slyly plant the idea in Dhanush’s head that the child Sneha is carrying may not be his.

There is not a single “good person” in this movie – everyone does what they have to do to live another day. Hence the film’s Darwinistic tagline: “Survival of the fittest.” The cops who arrest Dhanush when he is down fall at his feet when he rises again – they have to survive too. And never before had we seen a man so animalistic, governed only by his appetites. Hunger. Sex. Power. Survival. There’s a point where we think he’s changing. He softens when he hears he’s becoming a father. (After all, even animals have feelings for their young.) He abandons his child because he thinks that’s best. He wails. But after a few minutes, he’s back to his life, back to thinking about himself, back to surviving. And instead of being punished for his selfishness, he is rewarded. Text at the end of the film tells us that he was elected MLA three times, that he served two terms as finance minster, and now runs several educational institutions. Ten years on, we still haven’t seen another film so unapologetic about the truth that crime does pay.

wow…. your view about dhanush’s performance in the film was not exactly appreciative. But today seeing it i wonder if someone else other than him would have really AGREED to do it in the first place. And would have fit in the role….

This still remains Danush’s/ Selvaraghavan/ Yuvan’s best work to date IMO. Starting with the choreography of the songs, Danush’s affecting performance(seeing his friend holding his kid, that was tense). The more I watch it, the more I noticed. Selvaraghavan is unapologetic about how all characters go their way towards the end. Pool Pesum Poo Pesum did a very excellent description of “kaadhal bodhai”.

The supporting actors here made the movie better, all understated, lack of overt dramas. And the most impressive thing is that Selvaraghavan managed to keep the movie interesting while maintaining the grit. Very few movies can come close to that.

@BRfan: i think Simbu would have done well too. No am not bring the duality war here. When I watched the film in the theatre (yes among the very few) in the interval block when dhanush tweaks his hair n moustache and especially the dustbin scene looked Simbu of Thothijaya in the frame. Irrespective of that, what a film that was. I was so embarrassed being the only person in Sathyam clapping and laughing in the theatre. The audience i watched the movie with were so turned off by it. I still don’t know why,

The only regret I have about Pudhupettai was that I wasn’t old enough to watch it when I read your review of it. To me, that movie is the reason why I still go watch Selva movies in the opening show, despite them being trashier and trashier these days.

Always felt that way about Madhavan in Aaytha Ezhuthu. He was terrific in the earlier portions, but as you said, Mani Ratnam ‘threw his hands up in the air’, and Madhavan’s ‘good-boy vibe’ too worked against him. Abhishek Bachchan, for me, did a more convincing job, though I don’t know if his image (or lack of it) had anything to do with it.

And you know what BRangan, just came home and heard the news of a young woman brutally murdered in Nungambakkam Railway station. Saw the news right after reading this piece.

I immediately connected that gore incident to the stuff you wrote about here.

Does detailed crime depiction using the remorseless, completely corrupt protagonist in the movie really pay???

When film-makers know that even if there exists only one nut-case, who is inspired by such a “hero” (shown as evil incarnate) and is proud to emulate the hero, isn’t it their (directors’) responsibility to make sure that even inadvertently they are not the cause for arbitrary carnage???

Until two hours ago, I was under the notion that, what can a poor film-maker do, when morons anyways exist regardless of the movie/director.

But now a genuine question springs up: Do such unapologetic movies actually encourage more violence? Perhaps there really was some merit in the yesteryear-theory of justifying any tyranny exhibited by the protagonist?

As a huge fan of anti – heroes, I really enjoyed this article. Remember being mad as heck when I watched Pudhiya Padhai, particularly when the character played by Sita chooses to make a life for herself with the man who raped her for money! (Geez! Why is it always assumed to be the mother or wife’s responsibility to reform an errant male? Can’t the bloody men have eureka moments when they are being unmitigated arses and reform themselves?) But somehow, despite my outrage I came to care deeply for both characters and wept like a baby during the tragic climax. Parthiban is something else when in top form!

Getting back to the others who stood out in the anti – hero oeuvre, I am surprised at some of your omissions BR. What about Rajinikanth’s pathbreaking character in Balachander’s Moondru Mudichu? KB did not bother with “but only because” either unless you want to dwell on the poor little rich boy angle! What a character! Remember the scene where he lets his best friend drown? It is only after the deed that he is filled with remorse… It remains one of my favorite superstar performances. If only he had persisted with these wonderfully complex characters he would have been knee deep in National and Academy awards 🙂

Other honorable mentions include Ajith in Vaali (what a daring gambit to make a deaf-mute the insanely passionate lover who will stop at nothing to get his gal! SJ Suryah and Ajith were both in their element). Vijay also had his Piriyamudan. STR’s Manmadhan was flawed but strangely entertaining.

As for Dhanush and Selva, I thought Kadhal Kondaen not Pudhupettai was the superior movie. IMO both overeached with Pudhupettai and as you said, back then Dhanush was too raw and too much of a skinny runt to pull off Kokki Kumar. In KK though he fitted the part perfectly and thanks to the intensely poignant “but only because” you could not help rooting for him.

Finally, a shout out to Bollywood anti- heroes. I think SRK was the awesomest of them all. Who can forget his memorable turns in Baazigar and Darr (even Anjaam)? It’s too bad that the Chopras and Karan Johars made a loverboy out of him. King Khan was the best anti – hero ever!!

apala: But Soodhu Kavvum isn’t exactly an antihero movie. It’s more like a gang of conmen…

rohitsathishnair: That’s a good point. Abhishek did not have an image yet, and especially not that of “cute lover boy,” so as good as Madhavan was, Abhishek came off better. Also, Abhishek has a rougher (i.e. non chocolate boy) look.

This aspect of films has always interested me, i.e. how handsomeness equates (in our mind) some semblance of “goodness.” In reality, we know that a good-looking person can be evil, but on screen, somehow, the more twisted the face, the easier we accept him as evil.

Jaga_Jaga: It’s an old question. But I still believe that art should be freed from the burden of social responsibility.

Anuja Chandramouli: I have never understood the “how could you not mention this” comment. In an article of this size, one can only be illustrative, not exhaustive. It happens in reviews too. “How can you not talk about this or that?”

Fair point about Moondru Mudichu, and I am sure there are other films. But again there, we have the reformation angle + torment by conscience, which softens the sociopathy.

BTW, am not a fan of Pudhiya Paadhai at all. As a film, I mean. Horrible theme and once the novelty of the hero talking about Nirodh etc. wears off, the film becomes really preachy and weak. But it’s still amazing that the lead character doesn’t just rape the girl in a drunken fit or something, but because it was a “job,” and he was paid for it. For that time, this kind of character was really something.

Ajith in Vaali is compensated for by the good Ajith. I thought of mentioning that in this piece — where the antihero was “softened” by having the same actor play the good twin as well, like Kamal in Indhiyan etc.

Oh, and Pudhupettai >>>>>> Kadhal Kondain. The latter is just a wannabe Guna 🙂

It wasn’t exactly good looks that changed the deal here. Mani Ratnam tried his best to make the man look ordinary(if not evil), but he still seemed to have some kind of rugged hanndsomeness.

The man isn’t handsome alone, he looks super-genial, which isn’t the same for Abhishek Bachchan

Both of them were doing very similar roles till this bilingual, but while Madhavan got recognised(and thus had an image built) with these roles, Abhishek’s films were more or less failures. Yuva was indeed his big break

Selvaraghavan, Dhanush and Yuavan were in good form when Pudhupettai was released. I was blown away by the songs much before watching the movie. Dhanush looks a bit of a misfit in the initial parts but grows into the role. The audience can sense the arrogance and the desperation of Kokki Kumar through Dhanush and the numerous side characters were wonderfully done. Waiting for Selva to get back in form soon.

I was put-off by the Sivaji-Ganesan like theatre acting by dhanush in the movie, with no room for subtlety.

But, selva does offer reasons for his transformation. Like the traumatizing Dad who wanted to kill him, being jobless and hungry for food, watching those gangsters eating=doing well in life (atleast in his POV).

On a side note ‘varriyaa’ is such a energetic number that makes me want to wear a lungi and start dancing like a maniac, whenever I listen to it.

Mr. Rangan, could you please suggest a few Tamil films that deal with LGBT characters? I ask because a LGBT film festival is being organized in Kolkata, and we would like to screen films from all over the country rather than only Hindi films like ‘Aligarh’ and ‘Kapoor and Sons’, as remarkable as they are. So far, the only prominent Tamil LGBT film I have been able to locate is ‘Navarasa’. I shall be grateful if you can suggest some films that are: (i) have one or more LGBT character(s) as the protagonist or at least as one of the main characters rather than in a cameo; (ii) have no character specifically described as LGBT but has noticeable undercurrents of homoeroticism; (iii) are not homophobic in dealing with the characters; (iv) are full-length feature films rather than shorts or documentaries.
Thanks.

Your piece has come out at an appropriate time. A young girl was butchered in broad daylight, in the heart of the city, with people looking on. From newspaper reports I understand that the killer had been stalking the girl for sometime now. Tamil cinema with its glorification of criminals, uneducated thugs and stalking should take a major portion of the blame, if not for the murder, definitely for incidents of stalking of women. In how many films have we seen the uneducated poor ‘hero’, stalking the upper class girl in the name of ‘love’. This is not the first incident of a young girl being stalked and killed and won’t be the last. Filmmaker’s will not change, they will continue peddling their shit lower class rowdy guys falling for educated girls ‘romances’. Impressionable young people will continue to be influenced by this shit. We need tougher censorship laws to deal with the irresponsible filmmakers.

I still remember watching it in US theatre with my firends and handful of people in theatre. Surprsignly no one including me liked the movie then. But i need to admit that it made an impact and whenever its telecast in TV, i make it a point to watch this movie. Though director tried to be honest and uncompromising, length and overdoes of violence killed the movie. Like somebody said, it needs to have the subtlety. Even in current Raw format, better editing or tighter screenplay would have bought financial fortunes for the movie. By the by, why we are not getting original DVD/BluRay for movies like Pudhupettai and AaranyaKandam.

Parthiban had a penchant for doing such roles – Ulle Veliye, Pachchakuthirai among others. The success of PP might have prompted him to do such films.

Among the many taboos broken by Pudhupettai is the utter disregard for the mother figure so sacred in Tamil cinema.

I think the credit should go to Thappu Thalangal. Except for the fact that Rajini and his ‘evil’ half-brother are born out of the same womb, we don’t have any clue about the mother character (correct me if i’m wrong). Given the background of Saritha’s character, it’s safe to assume that his mother, too, may have been a sex-worker.

Abhirup: Really tough to come up with positive LGBT representation. The only film that comes to mind is the comedy “Goa,” which showed a gay couple without quotation marks (at least, as far as Tamil cinema is concerned).

Otherwise, we’ve had transgenders in 3 films that I can recall now: Appu (the Tamil remake of Sadak), Kanchana ( a horror comedy), I (revenge thriller).

And gay serial killers in Vettaiyaadu Vilaiyaadu.

As for “undercurrents of homoeroticism,” many films dealing with close friends come close enough to be read this way — but not overtly.

Almost many have some cruelty and negativity towards fellow human beings or animals. How will one explain kids throwing stones at dogs and cats? How will one explain ragging? How will one explain squashing a mosquito and feel victorious? How will one explain voyeurism watching violent movies?

Hi Baradwaj, you missed the movie “Thiruttu Payale” that perfectly fits the crux of your article. There is no “but only because” anywhwere to describe Jeevan’s character and every single person in the movie is a contender for your lines “There is not a single “good person” in this movie — everyone does what they have to do to live another day. Hence the film’s Darwinistic tagline: ‘Survival of the fittest.” Would feel sooo happy if you happen to see this comment and provide your thoughts 🙂

Thanks for your suggestions, Mr. Rangan. I have seen ‘I’ and ‘Vettaiyadu Vilayadu’. The less said about the transgender character in the former, the better. As for the latter, I was rather confused about the sexual orientation of the serial killers: they are homosexuals (or at least, that is what Kamal Hassan calls them during the climax), but it is women whom they rape and kill. I don’t know what to make of this, and shall be glad if some explanations are provided.

Shall definitely check out the other films you have mentioned. Besides, if it is not asking too much, could you name at least a few of those films where you say friendships are portrayed in a way that may be interpreted as having undertones of homoeroticism? Thanks.

BR, I was just thinking and though not as intelligent or interesting as “Pudhupettai”, I guess Venkat Prabhu’s “Mankaththa” also fits this “crime does pay” category, right? Ajith gets away with murder and money!

The rest of Pudhiya Paadhai is fairly conventional, in the sense that Parthiban realises the error of his ways, becomes a changed man, and so forth

Too conventional, wouldn’t you think? For me the horror of Pudhiya Paadhai was that the raped girl feels she “has” to marry her rapist because what else is the option? he raped her, and so now she is “his”. Ugh. It was revolting. And the movie got a National Award, did it not? There was a time when the censor board would not allow “crime pays” ending, so the baddies had to be hauled off by the cops. Why was this not changed, on a similar basis. One of the most regressive themes in movies is the belief that rape victims have to marry their rapists and will rehabilitate them with their steadfast devotion.

The entire theory of why baddies go bad, because of some deep seated childhood trauma, reminds me of Wodehouse:

‘I don’t think i can go as far as that,’ he said,’but he certainly ought to see a psychiatrist.’
‘A what?’
‘One of those fellows who ask you questions about your childhood and gradually dig up the reason why you go about shouting “Fire” in crowded theaters. They find it’s because somebody took away your all day sucker when you were six.

I have to agree with Radhika. Pudhiya Paathai had no business winning a National Award. The message it sent out was horrible – that it was enough for the rape victim to marry her rapist for him to turn into a ‘good man’.

They remade that film as ‘Benaam Badsha’, did they not? Anil Kapoor, Juhi Chawla? With Juhi’s character moving into Anil’s character’s neighbourhood and ‘convincing’ him to marry her, and even feigning a pregnancy to make him do so? Ugh! Ugh! Ugh!

News to me that Pudiya Paathai won a National Award and it is confounding. If movies need censorship, it is with scenes like the rapist getting married the rape victim. A lot of people think that showing a woman who was raped being married off to her rapist as alright? Why stop at that? .Let’s progress one more step by making the woman a modern and bold, wanting to exact vengence on her rapist by lying tooth or nail to get married to the said rapist. And let’s make a romance out of it. Yuck.

@Abhirup With respect to your question, one additional aspect which I want to bring is the archetype of “Harbingers” which is normally associated with transgender community in Indian cultural context. I have seen that aspect played out in many movies where Transgenders are shown as early weak signals of moral compass when chaos reins in. Take the scene in Bombay where a Transgender rescues Arvind Swamy’s son in Mumbai Riots and she is given a preachy segment about world peace, religious violence, blah blah blah. I have seen this archetype in few other movies, although this one example comes at the top of my mind.

nanda: How on the earth does winning a Filmfare award (earlier or more) make one a better actor? Going by that logic, SRK>>>>>Aamir in pure terms of acting.

Sivaji and Rajini are stylized actors. But I’m not sure if their expressions and mannerisms are similar; Rajini is more of the Shatrughan Sinha mold. As I said earlier, Sivakumar is the true successor of Sivaji when it comes to the overacting dept. Would you call his performances in Mullum Malarum and Johnny as ‘overt’ Sivaji-like?

This comes about from the “Tamil kalaacharam” notion that links sex (and therefore loss of virginity) with marriage. Since she lost her virginity to Parthiban, she must either marry him or die.

The worst instance of this “rule” comes in Gayathri, where poor Sridevi is made to act in porn films by Rajini and his sister. Now, even though she has sex only with him (i.e. her husband), she’s “exhibited” herself to the world. As Vairamuthu put it, “Kanavan mattum kaanum azhagai kadaigal pottu kaaturiye.” So even though she is “rescued” at the end, she has to die. But she is “spoilt goods.”

I would argue that these notions are more harmful than the films that glorify rowdies etc. Not many people pick up a machete. But these ideas of virginity etc. really get entrenched thanks to films.

brangan: “Not many people pick up a machete. But these ideas of virginity etc. really get entrenched”.

Aye aye captain! That’s profound.

Maybe not explicitly, but all women everywhere in the world face the consequences of this “life imitates art” phenomenon.

Another related thing that Tamizh cinema tends to perpetuate is this: the way to truly defeat a woman is to rape her. So, defeat on the intellectual plane is not real defeat for women, or what? And, why is a rape victim “defeated”?

This is also why I need force myself to dislike movies like Highway. You develop feelings for someone who beats you and threatens to sell you to a pimp? That just means you are mentally imbalanced. I felt it was somewhat morally wrong for Imtiaz Ali to have even made such a movie and explored that angle.

But I loved that movie. And I loved the way their relationship blossomed. I don’t know why.

As a child, I thought that was the only path for a raped woman – it was shown that often in 80s/90s movies. Hero will fight with villian and at the end of the fight whether cops arrrive or not, the villian will be married off to the wronged sister. Link between virginity, spoilt goods is right. But then I realize this notion existed in quite a few sections of society long before movies picked up. It is only recently for past 10 years where punishment is the only judgement given to rapists. Before that apparently there were even cases filed asking the rapist to get married.

I disagree with you on the machete thing. It really desensitizes you to blood/gore. Even a non-smoker would be tempted after watching cigarette smoking.

Not saying movies shouldnt show any of these. But endorsement outside of it can be avoided. Emphasizing that is just a character being portrayed on the scene – this absolutely doesnt happen.

Like Dhanush and Anand L Rai defended the stalker behavior during promotions. Dhanush says in interview that only women dump men and reverse is not true. Such creative talents but very little aptitude otherwise.

PS: Mahanadi had a lovely story line where the daughter gets married at the end.

Oh dear Lord! I have never heard about this Gayathri! It sounds terrifying like Rahini says. Who the hell came up with these horrible rules anyway? Even scarier is the fact that even in the so called modern age we have films were rape victims either marry the rapist (Naatamai theerpa maathi sollu) or kill themselves (Yuddham Sei made me mad at Mysskin because he seemed to have worked in the suicide angle just so the vengeance card could be played). However his Anjathey was heartening as a brave rape victim makes the decision to go to the cops to spare others the same fate.

I noticed there is a lot of hate for PP and let me stress that the theme makes me wanna hurl but even so ultimately these things boil down to personal choice right? It is one thing for Naatamai to decree that you marry the rapist but quite another for Sita’s character to decide to marry her rapist simply because she would rather be with him than her Dad. Sometimes a girl has to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea and make the best of it. My point is I really liked Sita and Parthi in that flick and desperately wanted them to have a happily ever after since their lives had been marred by gross violence and abandonment issues.

Anuja: And I agree that PP is a movie that had it’s moments. If you remove the rape angle and decide that Sita decides this for some other reason then it is fine. He lived without love right from the cradle (that dustbin) and just didn’t know appropriate behavior. He did not see people as people and he slowly learns to love. And when he learns to love, the world learns to respect.

I loved it that she names him during their first consensual night. He never had a name until then as nobody ever called him anything other than “Hey there”. I also love it that he first builds the house as she should have 4 walls for privacy and it isn’t something that he wanted until then. He always could build a house, he just never needed one before. Step by step she persuades him to have a non-rowdy profession too. She brings in respectability.

But the Rape angle does spoil all this in one single shot. If the writer had sufficient squick about rape marriages and concepts of virginity and spoiled goods, he would have thought of some other angle as to why educated and otherwise sensible Sita wants to be rowdy Parthiban’s wife and would not take no for an answer.

People love the odd couple stories and find them fascinating. Some angles usually covered are “Forced Arranged Marriage” trope (Nenjathai Killathea, Mouna Ragam, Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi), shipwreck stories and Feral Child stories like Tarzan. But the writer should know why the odd couple are together anyway and plenty of Mills and Boon novels screw this up too.

I am fine with Parthiban being amoral. But Rape is not amoral, it is a straight out immoral crime. Why is the point that he just did it for money makes things better? I never got that point. It was almost like we are not supposed to judge him as he did not rape for lust.

Please note that the groom does decide to marry her, SHE says that she can’t marry him as she can’t gift him virginity. So this is not a case of devil and the deep blue sea at all. (This is how I remember this story)

And the “It was her choice, she is a strong woman” angle and justification is just so wrong. I am all for people in real life making stupid choices as long as they don’t blow up buildings while doing so. If my best friend is raped and wants to marry the rapist, I will try to talk her out of it. But I would not force her out of it. If she believes that it is what she would do, then it is what she would do. Her life, her choice, her guy, her hell.

But a character in a movie (or novel) are pawns without REAL choices. They do what their writer’s tell them to. So the whole “Look how strong I make my female characters, I am no misogynist” angle just doesn’t work for me. Kannagi was no wimp either. She could burn a city down. She may fight for justice. But after all that, Silapathikaram was just regressive crap. Just because Kannagi had the guts to scream at the reigning king and his consort, I can’t forgive that story and call her strong. Not even if the poems were breathtaking.

As you are a novelist it would be fascinating to know if that is how you view your characters. Are they pawns in your hands? Or do you believe that they have a life beyond the writer’s control?

What I have written above is not what I remember from watching the movie itself. That happened right after the movie was released (1989). This movie was featured later in a movie analysis debate show.

Two people spoke ‘FOR’ and two people spoke ‘AGAINST’ the movie in question and the naduvar gave a theerpu. I don’t remember the theerpu but I remember many of the arguments. Has anyone seen this show? It must be during the time Jaya TV was called JJ TV(1995 or so). I don’t think it was very popular. Pudhu pudhu arthangal was debated too. I loved it.

Rahini: My characters are no pawns and I have always been fascinated by the fact that sooner or later they do their own thing ignoring the plans I have for them. Which is why I feel strongly about the fact that people are entitled to their choices, even or especially if they are stupid. Like you, I would also do my utmost to dissuade a loved one from making such a moronic decision but then the heart wants what the heart wants.

I also could not fathom Sita’s decision to turn down her fiancé’s offer to marry her but she probably had her reasons which she probably did not understand either. Aggressive Feminism in its way is as bad as rampant misogyny or chauvinism. It ought to remain a woman’s prerogative to be comfortably uncomfortable about her sexuality, to make the decision to spend her life being the dutiful wife/daughter/ mother while not aspiring to be the CEO of PepsiCo and not receive flak for it.

Its the same with Kannagi whose idolization gets on my nerves BTW. But if she chose to burn down Madurai over the loss of her loser husband, well I won’t celebrate or try to emulate her but I see no reason to deride her either.

(1) I did not mean Parthiban is “better” or “greater” because he rapes for money and not out of lust. I am saying this was a bold thing for the FILM to have done during that time. Because Sirai “explained” away the rape by saying the man was drunk and he lusted after the woman. But here we are given no mitigating excuse. He did it because he wanted money. That’s quite something — for a character to be drawn this way — in 1989.

(2) Yes, we have to know the difference between a CHARACTER endorsing a regrettable trait/behaviour (which is okay, to each their own, etc.) and the FILM endorsing the same trait/behaviour (which is more problematic). But film-watching is not a cold science and the things people say and do can affect your viewing. Here it just seemed that the film was taking a stand on this because I could not rationalise how an educated, middle-class girl like Seetha could bring herself to a slum and fall for the man who raped her. Yes, her reformist instincts are shown in the film in that other incident where she busts a prostitution racket, but when raped, she says she is not “worthy” of her fiance who still wants to marry her — this to me is the FILM talking and not the CHARACTER.

BR: Actually I already understood what you were saying, I meant that I have heard people say that. Specifically, I remember that vibe coming out of that tele-debate I was talking about. But it has been 20 years and I was a teen. Maybe I misunderstood what was being said. But I was not able to wrap my head around that thought.

Also, I have been conflating another similar story in my mind. It is the story of an industrialist who rapes specifically so that she loses the opportunity / ability to marry anyone else. The girl refuses the post rape proposal and he spends the rest of the story being a darling and impressing her. It is a tamil novel and I was told I was going to be impressed. I realized how the story was going and stopped reading it. The tamil novel enthusiasts felt that it was wrong to rape but also saw it as an act of desperate love. You can imagine how I would have reacted to that line of thought.

The similarity is that rape is seen in both cases as amoral rather than criminal. The conversation was with college mates.

Any thoughts about Salman Khan’s rape comment and his father apologizing instead of his son who is 50 year old? And almost the entire bollywood refusing to take a stand on this? Why in the first place he thought that a raped woman will walk like that?

Rohit, you’re absolutely right : the pilot character was stereotyped enough to be cringe-worthy. What I liked about the movie was that (spoiler alert) the twist in the end came as a surprise, with the unreliable narrator trope, similar to The sixth sense. But even though Prithviraj’s character was not stereotyped, there was still a lot of negativity associated with his character so I agree, I’m not sure this movie would be appropriate. I was a little appalled later to hear people express the view that people of Prithviraj’s stature shouldn’t play gay characters.

I usually take the stand that movies shouldn’t be burdened with being “responsible”, but I am questioning that stance after the recent gruesome murder in Chennai. What has been more disturbing than the murder is the reaction in media/social media. A leading Tamil newspaper called it “kadhal prechanai”. The reaction on twitter to singer Chinmayee’s post on the same issue was alarming. It ranged from “girls who cheat guys are bitches who deserve to be murdered” to ” I hope no on throws acid on your face, because it’s already ugly”. I have heard more than one woman say” enakku antha ponnu melayum konjam doubta irukku”. I mean this thinly veiled slut shaming. I can’t help observing that movies have some part to play in encouraging this thinking. Aren’t all Tamil movies mandated to have one TASMAC scene where the hero wails about the lover who dumped him?

Heartbreaking about that pretty young girl who took her life because her parents did not believe her. Why most of the time it is the girls who pay a price? And the young lawyer who was murdered by her watchman for refusing his advances?

Tonks:I was a little appalled later to hear people express the view that people of Prithviraj’s stature shouldn’t play gay characters.

Personally I have not met a single non-homophobe in real life. In the WWW, yes. But never in real life. I wonder why this is so. Is even accepting gay rights something that needs to be done in closets?

Srinivas: Regarding the “girls who cheat guys are bitches who deserve to be murdered”

You should ask people what qualifies as cheating in their dictionary. Smile and say Good Morning to two different guys and voila, you are a slut. Apparently he has earned the right to throw acid. Misogyny is rampantly growing in our society.

Forget what our filmmakers are feeding to us. Just classify the WhatsApp jokes you receive into two folders “against the guys” and “against the girls” for a whole month and then check the number of meme/jokes in both folders. You will see misogyny even in that count.

Anuja:But if she chose to burn down Madurai over the loss of her loser husband, well I won’t celebrate or try to emulate her but I see no reason to deride her either.

Oh for God’s sake, she was a mass-murdering terrorist.

Also, I heard from a reasonably good source that according to Silapathigaram canon, Kannagi conjured up a fire that spared the lives of the weak, the old, the children, the women and the brahmins. So her gaandu is reserved for able bodied men of the lower castes in the 18-57 age range? And I am supposed to clap my hands at how sweet and just this bitch was? I mean, what is the point? Can someone who is into reading books of this type confirm this? Frankly, I would not put it past Ilangovadigal.

@Rahini, in Chennai (and in TN) , if a girl casually flirts with a guy, then he thinks that she is in love with him and immediately starts hounding her with his marriage proposal. God forbid, If she turns him down she should be prepared to face an acid attack or worse, lose her life. It seems that the concept of flirting is alien to Tamil culture.

Anandaraj’s character in Pulan Visaranai (1990) was based on the serial killer ‘Auto’ Shankar. Many years later after he was hanged, a senior police officer claimed that cinema was solely responsible in making Shankar a criminal.

Raj Balakrishnan: Flirting/Dating are deiva-kuthams for parents/elders/college authorities in TN. My college boasts of Cosmopolitan Ambience in its brochure and I have seen a more blatantly hypocritical educational institution.

The in-time for women is 7.00 and for men it’s 9.00. And they haven’t provided a solid reason for this bias. The only girl who conducted a sort of online poll in Facebook and published her results saying that 85% of the women are feeling that the rules are discriminatory was suspended saying that she was trying to create unrest among students, and was sent back home accompanied with a female guardian. Her parents were called for and she was probably threatened citing her impending graduation. And the only professor (and he wasn’t an Indian :-p) who supported her was fired and sent back home.

Any form of physical contact between opposite gendered should be restricted to only handshakes (seriously??). We have crossed 18 and it is highly frustrating that these institutions are acting with such patriarchal mindsets asking us to do ‘this’ and ‘not that’ . The parents don’t mind obviously, citing ‘added safety’ for students

This in-time thing is a serious problem in Indian colleges(mostly South Indian) and I seldom see it receiving any sort of attention in media. We are adults and don’t you think we’ll be able to safeguard ourselves??

Sorry for this rant on a blog that’s meant for discussion on movies, but just couldn’t resist shouting about this. 😦

@Udhaysankar: Thanks for the link. College authorities coming down heavily on members of the opposite sex socializing is stupid and reveals their backward mentality, I’ve also seen the way people (belonging to certain sections of the society) react when they see boys and girls hanging out

Oh, forget flirting; I’m in manic post-Brexit UK now and was telling a family member (male) who is also here, that some guy shouted racial abuse at me; and his response to that is “I’m concerned for where you go if that’s what is happening to you. Was this at a pub?” bang head on wall. huff. repeat.

For a quick catharsis on how the au naturale depiction of male friendship in nouveau Tamil cinema has quickly spiralled into misogynistic girl-killing fantasies:

Honest Raj (formerly Venkatesh): I thought this video interview of brangan might be relevant. At about 22:30 someone asks his opinion on the direction of cause-and-effect of violence in movies to violence in society.

BR: I do agree with “we have to know the difference between a CHARACTER endorsing a regrettable trait/behaviour (which is okay, to each their own, etc.) and the FILM endorsing the same trait/behaviour (which is more problematic)”. But the thing is while it may be inconceivable to some that a woman would make such a decision, the harsh truth is there ARE women out there who make the choice to remain with their drunkard, wife – beating, cheating husbands/boyfriends and they are NOT only the poorly – educated, ‘brain – washed by a patriarchal society types. Again, if a woman wants to play the reformist, ‘Kallanum mannalum purushan’ believer, it is her CHOICE and while it is understandable for ppl not to get this sorta thing it is not ok to take a stand against it (IMO) just like it is not ok to call a woman a ‘Vallavatti’ for dumping her no – good hubby’s ass.

Rahini: Believe me, I feel you, I truly do. Have lost track of the many times I have made a case against Kannagi’s actions. And yes, though the epic seeks to absolve her of the crime of mass -murder by saying that her flames spared women, children, the old and infirm, I was never convinced about the ‘virtuous woman, pathini’ thing. Yet, in recent times given the intolerant climes we live in, I genuinely feel we should not be so quick to judge ppl. whose actions are inexplicable to us, simply because there is usually a larger picture and we may not be able to see it. For instance, there are a lot of male Gods (esp. Vishnu) in his many avatars who endorsed mass murder (ostensibly to relieve Bhoomi Devi of her burden of sin) but lets face it innocents always die over the course of these events (Remember Kurukshetra? How does it make sense for Abhimanyu or Ghatotkacha to die?) So while I certainly don’t get Kannagi I don’t feel inclined to dismiss her as a bitch either.

Note the exceptions: Brahmins, righteous people (who, exactly?), chaste women (not, not the others), the aged, and children are to be spared. The fire shall affect only “தீதிறத்தார்” (bad/evil folks) – so the actual list of people she orders to burn down is pretty sweeping; it includes women who don’t meet her chastity benchmarks too.

Rahini, you had to bring up Silappadikaaram! 🙂 I thought I was the only woman who didn’t think Kannagi was oh-so-fantastic! a) I had a huge (‘yu-u-u-ge’) problem with Kovalan, as well. He falls in love with Madhavi, who is apparently educated and cultured, and she falls in love with him. But the poor woman sings a viraha gaanam one day while she’s sitting with him, and that means – of course! that she’s pining for another lover! And therefore, she’s not ‘virtuous’. The double standard infuriated me even then! What right does Kovalan have to talk of virtue, considering he’d left his awfully-wedded-wife for an accomplished artiste?

And then, of course, Kannagi, full of righteous anger. It wasn’t enough that the king felt guilty and promptly died on the spot. If it was an eye for eye she wanted, she got it! In fact, she got double that, since the queen dies on the spot as well. But no! The ‘chaste’ wife had to destroy a whole city, and then be rewarded by a direct access to heaven. Aaarrrggh!

That said, this was my reaction as a teenager. When I first read the story of Kannagi in Amar Chitra Katha, I loved it! 🙂 I did once read a transliteration/translation of the original and must confess that for sheer literary merit, it was fantastic to read. I wish I could get my hands on that version now – it belonged to my professor in college.

Looking back, I’m willing to look at the story in the context of the time, and not be as bothered by the depiction of characters. Because there is no nuance in the story at all. They are all pretty one-dimensional cardboard cutouts. It is when we’re held to archaic standards today that I have an issue.

Especially when the responsibility of being teased, assaulted, raped, killed seems to be on the women – ‘What did you do?’ ‘Where did you go?’ ‘What did you wear?’ It’s ridiculous that in today’s day and age, we cannot, in a co-ed college, allow our young men and women to interact responsibly. It is a shame that talking and laughing with a boy = being ‘in love’ and therefore, the girl has to give in to his advances. We do neither our young men nor our women any favours if this is the lesson we’re teaching them.

(Neena, thanks for that link! I laughed so much at the way it was written, but oh, the truth hurts!)

Raj, Honest Raj, Kovalan met Madhavi at Poompuhar, in the Chola kingdom. It is interesting that Illangovadigal took care to make Madhavi ‘chaste’ as well. If I remember correctly, though a dancer, she was as virtuous as she was beautiful. In any case, after Kovalan squandered his wealth on her (or, her mother betrayed their trust and cheated Kovalan of his – actually, Kannagi’s – wealth) the aforementioned episode makes Kovalan leave Madhavi in a huff, because she is ‘so obviously in love with another man’, and has showed him her ‘true colours’. (Excuse me while I barf!)

Kovalan and Kannagi then leave for Madurai to make a new life, while Madhavi is left behind to mourn a man who, quite frankly, doesn’t deserve it, and to bring up Manimeghalai, her daughter by Kovalan. She also apparently returns Kovalan’s wealth when she hears of her mother’s chicanery, so frankly, she seems a darn sight better ‘heroine’ than Kannagi.

Kannagi burns down Madurai because apparently she took ‘the people get the ruler they deserve’ quite seriously. The king was unjust, the jeweller was a cheat; ergo, the people of Madurai deserved to be punished. Oh, and she wasn’t an arsonist; the fire came out of the power of her chastity and spirituality. Goddess Meenakshi was forced to bring Kovalan back to life and take them both to heaven before the flames (of her fury – literally) subsided, and Madurai stopped burning.

When we judge Kannagi by today’s standards and values, she is too much politically incorrect. She spared brahmins! A fit case for courts for discrimination! Chaste women! 25 percent will vanish. Or is it much more? She spared the aged and the kids. Afterall she is not completely heartless! Do we believe that curses work? She simply must have expressed her anger and left. The king and queen must have died due to other reasons. And the fire must have occurred due to some accident. A mere coincidence!
Kovalan committed adultery, yet Kannagi defended him. Shades of Hillary? Kovalan must have courted Madhavi and must have discovered she has got a mind of her own! Or remembered his wife!

Interesting thing is Kannagi was angry with the King than with Madhavi.
Perfect story for SLB. Kannagi and Madhavi dancing together happily.

I think Tamil epics are no different when it comes to handling sensitive issues. The norm was – men/women belonging to ‘upper’ castes were noble, righteous, chaste, etc., and the reverse applies for those belonging to the ‘lower’ castes. It’s for the very reason that the Draupadi vastraharan remains a much-talked about episode even today, and nobody gives a hoot about women who were employed as ‘sex slaves’ in the epic.

sanjana: Curses work in fiction/mythology. 🙂 Given that, these are not real characters but constructed characters in a constructed story it makes a whole lot of sense.

Well, not really. The Pandyan king, Nedunchaliyan is unjust, or at least, quick to jump to assumptions. It is his action to have Kovalan killed that leads to his kingdom being razed to the ground.

Despite Kovalan’s condemnation of Madhavi as a gold-digger, from the poet’s point of view, she was not. She was supposedly cultured, accomplished (singer and dancer), beautiful, virtuous, (insert whatever good quality you admire)… She doesn’t know of her mother’s felony until much later; when she does, she returns Kovalan’s money. At the end of the tale, when she hears of the tragedy in Madurai, she is devastated and gives up the world to join a Buddhist monastery.

From the point of view of epic poetry, it is, even in translation a fantastic effort. One doesn’t necessarily have to agree with it’s views, but one does have to accept that it talks of values that were considered admirable in the society of the time.

If you look at the Odyssey, for example, Penelope keeps her chastity intact while waiting for Odysseus to return to Ithaca from Troy. Our Ramayana had its agnipareeksha. I’m sure if we look deeper into folk tales and literature from any country in the world, we are bound to find similar tales. The concept of a woman’s purity is one that crosses boundaries of region, religion, country, historical period, and even genres of literature and drama.

Iswarya: Does பசுப் பத்தினிப் பெண்டிர் mean பசு-kal and பத்தினிப் பெண்டிர் or is that a special variety of பத்தினிப் பெண்டிர் ? The question is only partly snark. 🙂

Anu Warrier: Awesome summary of the story. Full of relevant details and just the right amount of sarcasm.

Anuja Chandramouli:Remember Kurukshetra? How does it make sense for Abhimanyu or Ghatotkacha to die? Haven’t a clue. If you say it doesn’t make sense, I’d take your word for it. 🙂

Anyway, wasn’t Kurukshetra a war? And wasn’t the Madurai Massacre a … massacre? And I am not justifying war here.

Yet, in recent times given the intolerant climes we live in, I genuinely feel we should not be so quick to judge ppl. whose actions are inexplicable to us, simply because there is usually a larger picture and we may not be able to see it.

I am sorry to take a sledgehammer to so small a nut, but do we really want to extend this “I don’t judge others as I don’t know the whole picture” thing to, say the guy who murdered Swathi in Nungambakkam station? He probably had a reason. And I am not against sitting and giving the murderer a thought and trying to see this from his perspective. The following is what was written by a psychiatrist who had interviewed 7 men who had run amok in the late 60s.

“I am not an important or “big man.” I possess only my personal sense of dignity. My life has been reduced to nothing by an intolerable insult. Therefore, I have nothing to lose except my life, which is nothing, so I trade my life for yours, as your life is favored. The exchange is in my favor, so I shall not only kill you, but I shall kill many of you, and at the same time rehabilitate myself in the eyes of the group of which I am a member, even though, I might be killed in the process.”

The most chilling aspect of the above statement isn’t that it supposedly ‘fits’ with the thoughts of many men who had run amok. It is sort of a common factor. It is that there is a cold logic that I am personally able to understand and for a moment even empathize with. And in a real life situation, I would say that a life imprisonment rather than death sentence should be in order and that the state should do something to make the person sane again. Insanity can’t be great to live with. But that isn’t the line I take when it is a story that ends in our very own mass murderess getting her precious husband back to life and then earning 2 free one way tickets to heaven. And I was not absolving male mass murderous Gods anyway.

And I quite understand that we are not supposed to really think of her a actively killing people. As Anu was narrating, she was just too hot that the place caught selective sentient fire. If she had such problems she should have got the hell out of there ala Queen Elsa of Arendelle.

But the thing is while it may be inconceivable to some that a woman would make such a decision, the harsh truth is there ARE women out there who make the choice to remain with their drunkard, wife – beating, cheating husbands/boyfriends and they are NOT only the poorly – educated, ‘brain – washed by a patriarchal society types

Yes, and we are not against movies that they are depicted, only the movies that they are glorified. Pudhiya Paadhai does not say “look at that poor misguided soul over there”, but “look at this terrific girl’s code of morals and ethics…BRAVO”. Just saying “it may be inconceivable to some” just doesn’t begin to cut it. It is conceivable. It was conceivable in Parthiban’s mind. We need to take the next step and ask “WHY?” and more importantly “Why is it a admirable trait anyway?” The only solace is that it is an old movie. Maybe we have moved on. Then again, maybe we have not.

Well, not really. The Pandyan king, Nedunchaliyan is unjust, or at least, quick to jump to assumptions. It is his action to have Kovalan killed that leads to his kingdom being razed to the ground.

But why did she spare the brahmins alone (among other castes)?

One doesn’t necessarily have to agree with it’s views, but one does have to accept that it talks of values that were considered admirable in the society of the time.

Perfect. But why do people blame Rama for the agnipareeksha incident, and consider the disrobing of Draupadi as unjust, when she was legitimately won by the Kauravas?

How does it make sense for Abhimanyu or Ghatotkacha to die?

According to Krishna, Ghatotkacha (a half-rakshasa) was inimical to the brahmanas and henceforth deserved to be killed. Krishna merely used him as a trump card to save Arjuna, and danced (literally) after he was killed by Karna. Look at the conversation between him and Arjuna:

Hidimva and Vaka and Kirmira have all been slain by Bhimasena. All those Rakshasas were endued with might equal to that Ravana and all of them were destroyers of Brahmanas and sacrifices. Similarly, Alayudha, possessed of large powers of illusion, had been slain by Hidimva’s son. Hidimva’s son also, I have slain by the employment of means, viz., through Karna with his dart. If Karna had not slain him with his dart in great battle, I myself would have had to slay Bhima’s son Ghatotkacha. From desire of benefiting you, I did not slay him before. That Rakshasa was inimical to Brahmanas and sacrifices. Because he was a destroyer of sacrifices and of a sinful soul, therefore hath he been thus slain. O sinless one, by that act as a means, the dart given by Sakra, hath also been rendered futile. O son of Pandu, they that are destroyers of righteousness are all slayable by me. Even that is the vow made by me, for establishing righteousness.

Despite performing many heroic deeds, he doesn’t get the same attention as Abhimanyu (may be, because the latter was born in a ‘noble’ lineage). Ramayana had some ‘good’ rakshasas, but that isn’t the case with MB.

Posted this on the Iraivi thread; but because this discussion has taken an interesting detour from Pudhiya Padhai to Silappadhikaram:

“Read somewhere that this (Iraivi) is a take on Silappadhikaram – Ponni (Kannagi) doesn’t burn Madurai (Arul’s family) when her husband is killed; but chooses to liberate herself. I don’t know if the Pandiya mannan is reported to have had a troubled relationship with his wife :p)

@Anu: glad that you enjoyed the writing! And thank you for the Konar Urai on Silappadhikaram 🙂

I agree with you that epics, like films today, need to read for their complexity rather than judged based on how they align with our present-day liberal values. Unfortunately, when they are taught in school or used in popular propaganda, the characters are reduced to caricatures of chastity, virtue or injustice.

The brahmins of those times were considered men who had committed their lives to God. They were holy men, supposedly pure. You must also remember that in those days, the varnas were not as rigid as after the Vedic period. Therefore, birth did not automatically confer ‘brahmanism’ on you. The fluidity of the castes meant that a man could attain brahmanism by virtue of his actions. This is my hypothesis, so take it for what it’s worth.

But why do people blame Rama for the agnipareeksha incident, and consider the disrobing of Draupadi as unjust, when she was legitimately won by the Kauravas?

Ah, but was Draupadi legitimately won by them? Didn’t she raise that very question in the Kuru court? By the mores of even those times, could her husband have staked her? No, she says. And if he could, and he had already staked himself and lost, what right does he have to stake her?

As for blaming Rama for Sita’s agnipareeksha, from what I’ve read, and someone can correct me if I’m wrong, it had less to do with the mores of the times. It’s not as if everyone put their wives through an agnipareeksha to prove chastity. If that were so, the dhobi who threw his wife out on the pretext of adultery, would have demanded she go through an agnipareeksha to prove she was chaste. Instead, what he said was I’m not Rama to take my wife back after she’s spend the night with another man. Upon hearing which, Rama promptly abandoned Sita in the forest. My point is, if he has to listen to the dhobibecause he has a responsibility to his subjects, then where is his dual responsibility to Sita? As her husband and as his citizen? Also, where is his responsibility to the woman who was also his subject? Why didn’t he call the couple in and – if as you posit, the agnipareeksha was the ‘mores’ of the time – ask that the dhobhi’s wife go through one to prove her chastity? Since when has listening to the ravings of a drunkard been the ‘mores’ of any king? 🙂

Rahini, thank you. 🙂 and we are not against movies that they are depicted, only the movies that they are glorified.

This!

Neena, thank you, too. I agree that the issue is the way we interpret these old tales today within rigid(er) parameters when most of them were allegorical.

Anuja, I agree that the killing of Ghatotkach and Abhimanyu were two of the saddest parts of the Mahabharata, but I disagree that that is the same as Kannagi burning Madurai down. (This comment is already too long, so I’ll cease and desist. 🙂 )

Whoa! BR’s blog is becoming one of those serials which if you miss an episode or two, the lead will have married another time and you have hard time why the first one didn’t work out. Was it because because of maamiar? ☺

Sanchita: You commented on how Dhanush said only women dump men.

Can you come up with a link to that interview? I am pretty sure he would have used podhuva illana mostly kind of word, which you have conveniently left out.

I have never ever seen a man dump a woman after he has loved her truly, which eliminates marooning, lusting and other such things, in movies.

Recently read about a girl who travelled the globe just by dating rich guys. But never got to read such news with roles reversed. Not generalizing. But this news cropped in my mind.

Men are usually the one who take the first step to love someone, or at least making known that their motive is to love. IMO, Naturally they will be the last to think of dumping them. All of this statement is made wrt true love and not infatuations.

Also you yourself have said that it should not be endorsed outside of film. Great. Fine. But then you follow up with Dhanush and Anand L Rai “defending” their stance.

Now I am sure some so called feminist might have had an issue and would have poked her/his nose requiring the both to “defend” their stance. They shouldn’t have had to defend ideally.

They didn’t go about saying stalking is good for health. Or this is how you should love. So thats NOT an endorsement.

Also commenting on someone’s aptitude on such precarious situation is plainly wrong and blatant. Because it changes with perception and point of view. I am sure he would have never said that men never dump.

Just that he has seen otherwise. And that you might have seen(or plainly speculating) otherwise.

In this case it isn’t of who is correct, but of what one percieves, is correct.

BRangan, kindly reply to this: Did you ever write a review about “Vellayiya irukaravan poi solla maattaan”. I somehow ended up seeing that film yesterday. Found it a pretty decent cutish-thriller-comedy lacking in focus. But never came across your review about the same!

For all out there: This is not a complete digression from the Kannagis/Kovalans/ and Madhavis. The movie is kind-of sort-of related to this thread.

Amit Joki: It is all very well to like an actor and be a fan and all that. And as Sachita did not give a link, you want to think that Dhanush’s interview would not that been that bad and that is fine too. Judging by your usual comments, you are a sensible person. But in order to defend an actor, a man you don’t know personally, you have descended to usual misogynistic arguments and not even well thought out ones at that? Is this worth it?

“Men are usually the one who take the first step to love someone, or at least making known that their motive is to love. IMO, Naturally they will be the last to think of dumping them. All of this statement is made wrt true love and not infatuations.”

Seriously? Are you a character from the world of Tamil movies or are you a real person in the real world? Or maybe I am a character from world of Peterland in Tamil movies?

Whether we like it or not, films, tv and internet are responsible for these irresponsible crimes by men who do not have inner goodness to protect them from committing these crimes. It is like giving monkeys delicate things and expect them not to break. Girls and their parents must be extra careful and learn how to deal with extraordinary circumstances as police cant be everywhere and public are too selfish to help. And exemplary punishment can also deter crimes being repeated. Let the girls learn self defence and carry some sort of weapon with them. A knife, pepperspray and yes, a gun if they can afford it. And wear clothes which will give them good mobility.

The brahmins of those times were considered men who had committed their lives to God. They were holy men, supposedly pure. You must also remember that in those days, the varnas were not as rigid as after the Vedic period. Therefore, birth did not automatically confer ‘brahmanism’ on you. The fluidity of the castes meant that a man could attain brahmanism by virtue of his actions. This is my hypothesis, so take it for what it’s worth.

Umm, is it explicitly stated anywhere that she was referring to the varnas? If the epic bases its characters on the varnashrama dharma, Ilangovadigal should be considered a brahmin.

Ah, but was Draupadi legitimately won by them? Didn’t she raise that very question in the Kuru court? By the mores of even those times, could her husband have staked her? No, she says.

Fair point. I don’t think even the epic answers her question. But then, women were viewed as the property of men. When the Pandavas gamble again and collectively lose everything, she accompanies them to the forest.

And if he could, and he had already staked himself and lost, what right does he have to stake her?

Ha, this is a dangerous thing even in today’s context. 🙂

My point: The epic describes the event as unjust because the victim happened to be a queen. It doesn’t condemn the practice of employing other women as sex slaves.

As for Ramayana, I admit that I’m not fully knowledgeable about the epic. However, I believe there must be a strong reason behind the agnipareeksha incident and Sita’s banishment, because he [Rama] never thought of marrying another woman (a practice that prevailed then) in his entire lifetime.

Men are usually the one who take the first step to love someone, or at least making known that their motive is to love. IMO, Naturally they will be the last to think of dumping them. All of this statement is made wrt true love and not infatuations.

Amit Joki: Where you listening to “Kaadhal Yen Kaadhal” while posting this comment? 🙂

Just saw the comments on this page.
My two bit: When I saw Pudhiya Padhai I was shocked at the storyline. I dont think any self respecting woman will go berating her rapist to marry her. I was left wondering how the tamil population actually enjoyed the movie. even if a movie is well made such things cannot be digested. On a similar note I have always found something denigrating to women in all Bhagyaraj’s movies. Never liked them though well made in some respects

Re Salman’s comment which someone had brought up my only question is why didn’t he say “I felt like I was raped”. Men are also raped. Why does a woman have to figure in this.

I will try to dig up the interview over the weekend. Couple of tamil anchors have raised the question with him anyway. And AnandL Rai- Dhanush werent defending stalkers in general but they claimed Ranjhanaa’s hero isnt one or he has his reasons – neither of them are true. This isnt restricted to just Dhanush anyway, there is simbu.. and so on

Wanted to add, loved how a discussion on crime/gangsters evolved onto Kannagi. It is good that we have evolved from where we accepted/celebrated these unfair acts( each one of them – kannagi burning madurai for a faulty judgement of a king or seetha’s agnipariksha) to debate. Or may be it was debated even then but history is written by winners and so on.

Also, going further, what if women do dump more? (Obviously, I don’t think even statistical proof of such a trend should be used by heroes in movies to wail about being victimised by women) But, what if women do dump more – perhaps realising, especially when they grow out of that teen world, that their lover-boy might not exactly be worthy of being a partner in life? Surely that is an indication of lack of growth in the man concerned than some sort of inherent untrustworthiness of female-kind? Or simply the growth of two adults in two different directions with different needs? Also, remember that once the knot is tied – it is often the woman who gives up many of life’s privileges, joys and freedoms – to please her man, her in-laws, society etc. Surely she’s entitled to rethink her choices when it comes to that, as the man is?

The hypocrisy of this ‘boohoo, women betray men’ rant becomes obvious when you look at the continuation of whatsapp/kumudham/cinema jokes about men suffering at the hands of their dominant wives or women trapping men into marriage etc.

I’m a big fan of Dhanush as well and I promptly rewatched Pudhupettai after reading this. There, his character justifies gang-rape explaining that women drink, men drink and then who can decide who is at fault there, when an unconscious woman is carried into a hotel room by three men and raped continuously. Of course, in the context of this movie, the character might indeed be expected to say such a thing – and given that he is hardly the hero there, it is not endorsement. But, that particular line seemed laboured and not at all organic or necessary to the scene – almost like he was playing to the gallery 😦

In Raanjhana, the character does become an adorable hero opposite a cold heroine with abstract left-wing politics. In other words, he is the underdog that many many fans are expected to identify with. I don’t have to mention ‘Why this kolaveri’ here (it’s insanely catchy and I like it in a way I don’t want to admit to!) and its appeal to a certain kind of MRA tendency among young men.

@BR and all PP haters: I’ve not seen the film, but have a reasonably good understanding of the plot (so feel free to correct me).

It is Sita’s choice right? On what basis does she intend to marry him? Lust, societal pressure or kalacharam? We’ve had a similar discussion in the MNM thread about Bhanupriya being forced to marry Rajini in Thalapathi. I see PP from a somewhat similar angle. Parthiban’s mother could’ve probably been an unwed mother and abandoned him fearing the society. Sita’s decision to marry Parthiban and reform him could be because of various reasons. One among them could be: She doesn’t want her child to become like Parthiban (in Tamil films it’s a norm that rape victims always become pregnant from rapes).

If Mani Ratnam does something it becomes a ‘full circle’, and if somebody like a Parthiban does a similar thing it becomes a trash? 🙂

Honest Raj, I’m tired of Rama being held out as ‘maryada purushottam and ‘he didn’t marry anyone else’ as some sort of a halo of goodness. Frankly speaking, I can’t stand the smug hypocrisy of the man. 🙂 So take this for what it’s worth.

A man who loves only one woman, and that woman his lawful wife, does not listen to the ravings of a drunkard and abandon his pregnant wife in the forest.( Where is his ‘duty’ as a husband then? To protect, to cherish, to make sure she’s fed, clothed… all promises made at the saptapadi.) Then, when she is finally brought back to the capital along with his two sons, and the sage (a man, of course!) ratifies her chastity, he is willing to accept her – but only if she goes through another ‘chastity test’. Good for her that at least at that moment, she said enough is enough and begged her mother to embrace her again.

Am I supposed to feel sorry for a ‘grief-stricken’ Rama then? ‘Sorry’, she says unapologetically. 🙂 I only wanted to clock him one!

My point being that while I can accept a story of that period as being accurate as to the mores of those times, the agnipareeksha was NOT, in fact, a social more. At least, not according to the Ramayana. It was purely for Rama to prove to people – and possibly himself – that his wife was ‘pure’ even though she had spent months with another man.

As an aside, what ‘sex slaves’? The women who are captured during the wars? Could you please elaborate?

In any case, my point was, as noted before, ‘The concept of a woman’s purity is one that crosses boundaries of region, religion, country, historical period, and even genres of literature and drama.‘ Since these were the two I could recall off the top of my head, I mentioned these as examples. As for the rest, women were chattel. And that was true around the world. Women of the conquered kingdoms were raped, imprisoned and taken back with the victors as part of their harems/sex slaves, if you will.

As for the ‘brahmins’ in Silappadikaaram again, this was only my hypothesis, so I could be wrong. What I was trying to say was that Kannagi didn’t have to be referring to the varnas or specifying which brahmin could escape the fire. Once you attained knowledge, and were tutored in the rituals of prayer in those days, you were a brahmin, no matter what your birth. So I’m assuming (again, operative word being ‘assuming’) that those were the people she spared. As in, they were not necessarily ‘high born’ but ‘pure, good’ people. That was my interpretation of that particular verse, knowing the period in which it was written.

Rahini, it is singularly apt that we discuss Kannagi in a post titled Crime Does Pay. 🙂 The woman burns down and entire city and she is rewarded with her husband’s life, two one-way tickets to heaven, and immortalised as a person worthy of emulation.

Interesting thread. Enjoyed reading various points / thoughts. I guess writers (movies or books) are also prisoners of prejudices they have imbibed. This is again related to good writers where they do make good movies but they sneak in. Many writers / directors play to the gallery. Mani Ratnam played to the gallery with Revathy running around the hospital showing her Thaali in Mouna Ragam. I did get tears in my eyes in that scene but out of theatre felt let down.

Coming to the original topic of BR, I can think of Pudupettai from what I have seen. Hollywood has too many unapologetic movies. “Wolf of Wall Street” is the last one in that category. What a great ride it was.

On Kannagi and Rama, as long as they are treated as stories, well and good. It becomes an issue and ventures in to danger zone when those protagonists are treated as Gods or role models by the society. Don’t even want to get in to what “Rama Rajya” would look like. Did I kick start a debate here ;-))

Honest Raj: Nope. It isn’t like that. Seetha isn’t pregnant, she decides the moment after rape that she is spoilt goods and as she can’t gift virginity to one guy, she is now obviously the wife of the rapist. She isn’t abandoned at all. She has a marriage proposal. The groom wants to marry her anyway.

Yes, she is like a mother to partiban. She names him. She names him seetharaman, I think. She pampers him. She gives him tiffin boxes, she gives moral instructions. She is very much his mom. The story is about how he becomes a more humane person because of this.

But does the first part of the story justify the second part? Most of us don’t think so.The second part of the story is awesome. But think of some other reason why seetha is abandoned. ANYTHING other than partiban raping seetha.

As for ‘sex slaves’, I’m not very sure. But a king (good or bad) is supposed to have such slaves. Nobody is an exception – not even Karna. On one occasion, when Duryodhana and his relatives are captured by the gandharvas, Arjuna (who comes for their) says, oppressing the wives of other men (mind you, they defeated the Kauravas fair and square) is not an act worthy of a king. And somewhere (not sure whether before or after this incident), there’s a mention of Krishna gifting gems and female slaves to the Pandavas. The phrases ‘good souls’ and ‘noble lineage’ are used interchangeably over and over again. Make of that what you will.

My Point: Although all women were held in low regard, there was disparity (in the way in which they were treated) even among them. When it came to social status, it was according to class/caste, but surely not according to their qualities/actions (at least in the case of MB).

Rahini: Oh, in that case PP must be the first Tamil film to break the ‘rape=pregnancy guaranteed’ rule. Wait, there’s Sakalakala Vallavan! I wonder why most of the rapists in films happen to be spoiled brats who belong to the upper echelons of the society, and not men who are already married, men who are serial rapists, men who are much older. May be, because they can conveniently give life to the victims (the heroines). We should appreciate PP at least for depicting Parthiban’s character as a ruffian. 🙂

Swathi was slapped by another man a few days prior to the murder. From what the police has said so far, it appears that the suspect was in love with Swathi but that he couldn’t take it when she did not reciprocate. He, therefore, decided to end her life. And they say hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Sounds cinematic? Because it certainly is. The storyline is the wet dream of any Tamil film-maker who is looking for a soul-stirring tragic love story, the sort that will have at least one song with the drunken hero and his bros abusing women for being such bitches or sluts or innocent heart-breakers. The drunken men are fondly called ‘soup boys’, a term popularized by Dhanush in ‘Why this Kolaveri di?’, the gaana that broke the internet five years ago. Wait, what was the song about? A white-skinned woman with a black heart who rejected our man and ruined his life. Right.

The heroine in Moonu, after Dhanush’s stalk-courting and winning-over, is very loyal to him throughout the story. She tells him right in the beginning of their relationship that her mother has plans for her to go to the US, and that this may be an obstacle to their romance later on. So it’s hardly a betrayal when it happens. And immediately after the Kolaveri song, she goes back to being so true to him that she dramatcally goes against all her parents’ dreams for her, so the whole Kolaveri song situation was, I thought, a little contrived.

Despite all this consistent theme of stalking in all his movies, I still love watching Dhanush on screen. And like someone here admitted earlier, despite the terrible misogynistic lyrics, it’s insanely catchy and sexy, and I can’t help liking the Kolaveri song either, so God help me.

(The other problem I had with Moonu is that when someone has a major psychiatric illness, their judgement is questionable so the friend withholding the diagnosis and treatment details from the people closest to him : his wife and parents ; and thus denying their support was probably the crucial reason for his suicide. It’s difficult to see a psychiatrist agreeing to this, it didn’t seem very plausible to me.)

The discussion on Kannagi was interesting. Here is a clip that speaks to some of the comments on this thread. In the movie Agni Saatchi, KB conceptualized “Innoru Kannagi” in a re-imagining of Silappadhigaaram’s ending. In this revision, one of the victims of Kannagi’s misplaced wrath, an irate doppelganger, takes the original to task for needlessly casting the dragnet too wide and acting with impunity (Call it massive scope-creep or a gargantuan folly!). This doppelganger is no less a firebrand than the original Kannagi, but exemplifies controlled fury, unlike the original whose uncontrolled rage has just burnt down an entire city. “Innoru Kannagi” is out to extract her pound of flesh no doubt, but in doing so, she extols the virtue of a surgical approach to vengeance. In the final act, to make a point, “Innoru Kannagi” petrifies the original with little collateral damage. MSV’s sage voice, Vani’s plaintive appeal and LR Eswari’s booming voice befit this fine song.

@Honest Raj (formerly ‘V’enkatesh): I’ve not heard of that KB movie either (Agni Saatchi bombed too, having nothing to do with that Kannagi clip). Generally speaking, Kannagi is a cultural touchstone for Tamils. When you denounce Kannagi, you are calling into question ingrained beliefs that have been around for thousands of years. Not that culture is above critical examination. But, given how emotionally fraught the topic can be, it is hard to find takers for this topic in the hinterlands (for minimal engagement). Among other things that sexism feeds off, it also feeds off the much venerated karpu (dear to Kannagi and Tamil society). Lest I be excoriated for self-goals by sons-of-the-soil, let me throw in the “He did it too!” defense that such reverence was (is) not unique to Tamil society.